Horizon distance and observers altitude problem

  • Thread starter Thread starter trina1990
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Altitude Horizon
AI Thread Summary
To determine the distance from a ship to a mountain top when both the mountain and observer have elevation, the horizon distance must be calculated for each height separately. The formula for horizon distance, derived from the Pythagorean theorem, involves the Earth's radius plus the respective elevations. The observer's height of 30 meters and the mountain's height of 1000 meters create two right triangles, allowing for the calculation of the distance to the horizon for both. Using the arccosine function can provide a more accurate result, ensuring the angle is in radians. Providing detailed calculations can help identify any potential arithmetic errors in the process.
trina1990
Messages
23
Reaction score
0
Here's a problem from an astronomy book
"the top of the mountain 1000 m in height can just be visible seen from a ship approaching the land where the mountain is situated. . If the observer's eye is 30 m above sea level. Then how far the ship is from the mountain? "

The main problem is i don't know to measure the horizon distance from a mountain top when the observer itself has some altitude. . Plz suggest me what correction should i need here in the formula of horizon distance "root over 2RH " to determine this distance?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
You essentially have two mountaintops - one 1000 meters high and one 30 meters high.

Find the distance to the horizon for each and add them together.

The concept is that your local horizontal is perpendicular to the Earth's radius. If you look along that local horizontal, you can see the top of the mountain because the sum of it's radius and elevation are high enough to reach that local horizontal. You have a right triangle consisting of the (Earth radius + mountain elevation) as the hypotenuse and the Earth's radius as the adjacent side. Just using the Pythagorean theorem you could get a pretty close answer for the distance to the horizon. A better answer is taking the arccos of the adjacent/hyp and multiplying by the Earth's radius (the angle from the arcos has to be in radians for this to work).

Since your elevation is 30 m high, your elevation + the Earth's radius forms a hypotenuse of a second triangle, etc. Both you and the mountain top lie on the local horizon, allowing you to just barely see the mountaintop "over" the Earth's curvature that lies between you.

I don't know what the letters in your formula stand for, since I don't know what book you have, but it's probably a shortcut for getting the approximate distance and the same principle almost certainly applies.
 
Yes, i tried with this. . Thanks a lot for helping
 
trina1990 said:
Yes, i tried with this. . Thanks a lot for helping
Can you show your calculation? Maybe there's just a arithmetic error somewhere, but we can't help with what went wrong unless we see the details of what you did.
 
I multiplied the values first without the error limit. Got 19.38. rounded it off to 2 significant figures since the given data has 2 significant figures. So = 19. For error I used the above formula. It comes out about 1.48. Now my question is. Should I write the answer as 19±1.5 (rounding 1.48 to 2 significant figures) OR should I write it as 19±1. So in short, should the error have same number of significant figures as the mean value or should it have the same number of decimal places as...
Thread 'A cylinder connected to a hanging mass'
Let's declare that for the cylinder, mass = M = 10 kg Radius = R = 4 m For the wall and the floor, Friction coeff = ##\mu## = 0.5 For the hanging mass, mass = m = 11 kg First, we divide the force according to their respective plane (x and y thing, correct me if I'm wrong) and according to which, cylinder or the hanging mass, they're working on. Force on the hanging mass $$mg - T = ma$$ Force(Cylinder) on y $$N_f + f_w - Mg = 0$$ Force(Cylinder) on x $$T + f_f - N_w = Ma$$ There's also...
Back
Top